Mr. V, I think she's saying this and let me spin this towards something more towards the side you'd be agreeable with.
Lets say we're back in 2005 and Michael Moore accused George Bush of attempting to Bribe him so as not to produce any more documentaries. He then releases "Audio" that he says is Bush offering him the bribe.
The Huffington Post reports on this audio and posts it on their website, and Redress links to it.
You then tell Redress "Okay, I think the Michael Moore is untrustworthy as he has a stake in this because it would cause the President to be impeached and he wants George Bush out of office, and I question the validity of the Huffington Post. You need to give me another source showing this actually ever happened".
Redress then comes back and gives you a link to The Washington Times, which has the exact same audio from Michael Moore.
While the two sources Redress linked to....HuffPo and Washington Times...are different, THEIR source is the same and you are suspicious of that particular source because he has a vested interest in what is in the audio actually being legit.
That's the situation here.
Two sources were posted, both of whoms source was the same thing (The IDF in this case) and that particular source is what's suspicious because they have a vested interest in what is in the audio actually being legit.
Fix the blinky eyes a bit? They're talking about the source referenced by the two "sources", IE the IDF, not the actual news organizations reporting it specifically.